Loading...
1-11-16- Handout- Robert Hines Handout Abe t -I- Fit^'e3 l-it-l6 My name is Robert Hines. I live at 880 Beach Avenue at the corner of Club Drive. I want to speak briefly about agenda item 8 C, concerning the South Gate at the Cloister's Condominium. First, I want to thank all of you for your service to our Community. Second, I want to sincerely thank Commissioner Stinson for getting involved and coming up with a proposed compromise. However, at this time, I respectfully oppose his proposal to make the Cloisters South Gate an entrance while the North Gate continues to be used as an entrance and exit. For the following reasons, I request that the Commission not take any action at this time, and table any decision on this issue until a later date when all pertinent information is available so the Commission can make a fully informed decision. According to comments in old Commission Meeting Minutes, including comments by former Mayor Gulliford in February, 1990, when the Cloister's was issued their building permit in 1973, it was issued under a PUD with certain restrictions, one being that the South Gate would be used for emergency purposes only and the North Gate would be the main entrance to enter and exit the property. And that's what happened. The South Gate has remained closed except for emergency purposes for decades. I understand nobody has found a copy of the PUD but it is apparent the property is part of a PUD. This exact same question was raised in 1990 and, at that time, the City concluded that the Cloisters is part of a PUD. That is memorialized in a memorandum submitted by the City Clerk on February 20, 1990. I have copies of the memorandum if you want to review it. Since it is apparent the restriction is part of a PUD, you would need to follow the law for amending a PUD, which includes submitting the issue to the Community Development Board, before the Commission takes any action. I also understand that on February 17, 2015 the subject of the South Gate at the Cloisters was considered by the Community Development Board and their recommendation at that time was to keep the South Gate at the Cloisters closed. The factors considered by the Community Development Board and the reasons for their recommendation should be considered by the Commission. If the information is available, why not take advantage of giving it some thought and consideration? If the analysis as described in the City Clerk's February 20, 1990 memorandum is somehow flawed, and someone wants to contend that the PUD does not exist, the Commission should determine where the restriction concerning the South Gate was memorialized so you can make sure you comply with the law when deciding this issue. Although we had a small town halt type meeting about the South Gate last Thursday night, it only included home owners from the Cloister's, Club Manor, and what has come to be known as little Plaza Road. Changing traffic patterns in this part of Atlantic Beach is likely to affect all the streets from Atlantic to Club Drive from Sherry to Beach Ave...Better known as Old Atlantic Beach. Some may disagree with that assessment but everyone must acknowledge the possible impact. Everyone in our community who may be affected by this proposal should have an opportunity to provide their input before a decision is made. I urge you to be prudent. Before making a decision on this issue, a traffic study should be performed by a Licensed and experienced Traffic Engineering Firm, to determine the actual impact the proposed change will have on traffic patterns in Atlantic Beach. Although I will leave it up to the professionals, it seems a diligent study should consider traffic at the peek of the season between Memorial Day and Labor Day, when the Cloister's is fully occupied. This issue should also be tabled until the issue concerning the City Attorney is resolved so the Commission can make certain the attorney focuses on this issue and advises the City whether its proposed changes are legal. If the answer to that question is not clear, the City needs to consider whether it will be exposed to a lawsuit and, if so, what the likely outcome would be. That likely outcome should be weighed against the perceived benefit of opening the Closter's South Gate. )/.11>e ' According the City's records, this issue has been considered at least three times. It was considered in 1986, 1990 and again last February. Each time the proposal to open the Cloister's South Gate has been rejected. Every time there is a claim that circumstances have changed. They haven't. Shouldn't there be some respect for prior decisions of the Commission and Community Development Board? Finally, I hope the Commission will clarify that the status quo should be maintained and the gate should remain closed until the Commission has an opportunity to make a fully informed decision. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.